Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

aier.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#41

Post by seanmcdirmid »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #26
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, America does have a wealth tax if you want to relinquish your citizenship. I don't think Norway does, and many rich Scandinavians change citizenship to Switzerland negotiating their taxes straight with the canton they move to (like the founder of Ikea did). It is easier for a Norwegian to optimize their taxes than an American (since America also taxes worldwide income, and you can't just change your citiz…

The US exit tax is not a wealth tax. It is calling due any deferred capital gains taxes. If you have a billion dollars cash, you can leave and pay zero tax. If you have a billion dollars in assets that have not appreciated since you bought them, you pay zero tax. It is only comes into play if you have investment assets that have gone up since purchase, and you have paid no taxes on them because they are taxed at the…

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#42

Post by rdtsc »

> Dellanna, a management advisor and author, points out that Norway collected about $1.46 billion on its wealth tax in 2019. But the exodus of the wealthy will result in an estimated $594 million in lost revenue.

This is the tricky part of "just raise it a few percent" for these wealthy entities. It seems a small increase won't make a large difference". But if they go from 2% to 2.5%, for instance, but there is a country, somewhere which, has a 2.1% tax, they'd all start feeling. So, in some ideal situation, when we consider only one particular country in a vacuum, it should work. But, it's a lot tricker when there are other countries to consider. Even more interesting, other countries could specifically target these wealthy entities by lowering their wealth tax to 2.4%. That's not unheard of with US states and companies: if one state raise their taxes, some state might start courting companies headquartered in that first state and promising tax cuts if they move their headquarters.

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#43

Post by lostlogin »

prottog wrote: post #36
nkjnlknlk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your snarky comment fails given that height is non-transferable whereas money is? Hair transplant would be a funnier comment. Alas.

I'll own the snark (and point out that height is only non-transferable if you aren't trying hard enough, a la Harrison Bergeron), but my point stands. Life is full of situations where someone has it better off than someone else in whatever dimension you care to look at. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome, which is what GP seemed to suggest in coveting the personal freedoms of a billionai…

> I believe in equality of opportunity

If this is to be achieved it is going to require a lot of money.

We are a long way from having a child growing up in social housing sharing the same opportunities as a billionaires child.

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#44

Post by w______roy »

unmole wrote: post #9
marssaxman wrote: post #8

But of course an institute called the "American Institute for Economic Research" is going to say that; from the about page, they believe in "the value of personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government, and sound money."

They sound like a monstrous bunch of people. /s

An important skill is reading between the lines, and recognizing libertarian dog whistles. Freedom to them = freedom from government regulating business. Freedom to me = freedom from worrying about businesses poisoning me and my family.

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#46

Post by s1artibartfast »

dontlaugh wrote: post #35
s1artibartfast wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I don't see the relevance. Are you saying any tactic or action is fair game in class warfare? Voluntary association and participation of individuals should be a baseline understanding.

I’m saying that if one class is already engaging in warfare, it’s not unreasonable for the opposed class to attempt to respond. Of course that is only possible with state power, which in most countries is now in the hands of the owners of capitals. That’s their main tool for engaging in class warfare in the first place. Individuals associating voluntarily is a liberal fiction. Such freedom only exists if you are alre…

It sounds like we are coming from very different axioms.

I don't think being hungry negates voluntary association.

Being hungry should not compel another to association any more than being horny should.

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#47

Post by zozskuh »

prottog wrote: post #27
dontlaugh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re assuming I own capital. I don’t. Maybe you wouldn’t want to move to a country where the working class is in charge, as opposed to your own class. I don’t dispute that.

I did not make that assumption, with the idea that in countries with free (or freer, at any rate) market-based economies with little to no capital controls, the rising tide lifts all boats, including those of the proletariat without capital, to a standard of living higher than countries with unfree economies and significant capital controls. In fact, in two of the countries that presently have significant capital con…

[dead]

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#48

Post by dontlaugh »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #46
dontlaugh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saying that if one class is already engaging in warfare, it’s not unreasonable for the opposed class to attempt to respond. Of course that is only possible with state power, which in most countries is now in the hands of the owners of capitals. That’s their main tool for engaging in class warfare in the first place. Individuals associating voluntarily is a liberal fiction. Such freedom only exists if you are alre…

It sounds like we are coming from very different axioms. I don't think being hungry negates voluntary association. Being hungry should not compel another to association any more than being horny should.

Currently, the owners of capital further increase their capital by employing workers. The labour of those workers creates value, a part of which the owner of capital keeps despite having not laboured for it. Violence is used to keep workers from the entirety of the value their labour creates.

Is that voluntary association? Seems to me like the owners of capital exploit the labour of workers, because they have the ability to compel it.

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#49

Post by s1artibartfast »

dontlaugh wrote: post #48
s1artibartfast wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like we are coming from very different axioms. I don't think being hungry negates voluntary association. Being hungry should not compel another to association any more than being horny should.

Currently, the owners of capital further increase their capital by employing workers. The labour of those workers creates value, a part of which the owner of capital keeps despite having not laboured for it. Violence is used to keep workers from the entirety of the value their labour creates. Is that voluntary association? Seems to me like the owners of capital exploit the labour of workers, because they have the abi…

What violence is used to keep workers laboring in their factories? Your position seems to hang on that point. I don't think refusing to intervene and letting someone starve to death is a violent act. To claim otherwise redefines violence as any actor action which does not meet your personal wants.

Re: Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring

#50

Post by dontlaugh »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #49
dontlaugh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently, the owners of capital further increase their capital by employing workers. The labour of those workers creates value, a part of which the owner of capital keeps despite having not laboured for it. Violence is used to keep workers from the entirety of the value their labour creates. Is that voluntary association? Seems to me like the owners of capital exploit the labour of workers, because they have the abi…

What violence is used to keep workers laboring in their factories? Your position seems to hang on that point. I don't think refusing to intervene and letting someone starve to death is a violent act. To claim otherwise redefines violence as any actor action which does not meet your personal wants.

If workers were to seize the full value of their labour, or seize the means of production, capital armies (like the police) would attack them. Even when workers merely strike they commonly get attacked by police.

The laws (and even the liberal ideology you adhere to) exist to favour the ruling class. Why would the ruling class do anything else? When the ruling class are the owners of capital, the laws and culture disfavour workers.

Ultimately it’s not worth discussing this to death yet again, it has been done countless times in the last couple hundred years.

Post reply on HN